Archive: http://msgs.securepoint.com/ids
FAQ: http://www.ticm.com/kb/faq/idsfaq.html
IDS: http://www-rnks.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/~sobirey/ids.html
UNSUBSCRIBE: email "unsubscribe ids" to majordomo_at_uow.edu.au
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 JohnNicholson_at_aol.com wrote:
> Off the cuff response. I'll give this some thought and if I think I need to
> elaborate or correct something, I'll post another reply later.
>
> I'm not sure this is that big an issue as far as the development of security
> tools is concerned. As I understand it, Mattel argued that cphack violated
> Mattel's copyright by displaying a list of websites that CyberPatrol blocks.
That is Mattel's arguement and I must say that I can understand that angle
on the issue, but the whole story goes a bit deeper than that. And no, I
don't think it's directly an issue as far as security tools goes, but I'm
up for a rant - sorry :)
Mattel/Cyberpatrol is using the "protect the children" bit to sell their
product, but whos standards are they using in this protection? How
exactly does labeling web sites that questions CyberPatrol's filtering
abilities as pornographic accomplish this goal?
Yes, Mattel does this, and yes, the only way you can see this for yourself
is by using an "illegal hacker tool" to access their database. Considering
the dynamic nature of the web it isn't rationally possible to control
content access to the degree that CyberPatrol claims it can, but if you
dispute their claims they label your website as being pornographic.
And this protects children how, exaclty?
Mattel is not worried about their precious intellectual property, they are
using the law in an attempt to CYA - Cover Your Ass.
So is the fact that if Mattel notices this post they'll probably block any
site mirroring it as being offensive due to "Full frontal nudity" a
security issue?.?..?..
For more info:
http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/Cyber_Patrol/
http://www.politechbot.com/p-00995.html
TaoJones, BOFH
TaoJones_at_EFnet
Received on Apr 19 2000
Intro
